Two students were selected to represent the Faculty of Law at the All Africa Human Rights Moot Court Competition. Their names are: Nikita Karsan and Khwezilomso Godana.

By Heather Dugmore

“Organised crime with a link to the illegal harvesting, processing and trading of fish and seafood globally is so huge that it is in effect a parallel economic system that is undermining sustainable economic growth.

Professor Sam Adelman’s visit to the Public Law Department

Professor Sam Adelman is a Research Associate in Public Law and in the time of the month of April 2019, he visited the Faculty. During Prof Sam’s visit, he engaged with staff members, PGA’s, post-grad students and researchers presenting workshops relevant to his research and teaching journey and providing input on research methodologies and techniques.

The University of Warwick and the Faculty of Law at Nelson Mandela University are partner institutions of the Law and Development Research Network and time was spent planning future interactions and the 2020 LDRn Conference which is to be hosted by Nelson Mandela University in September 2020. This will be the first time the conference will be hosted in the Global South.

Professor Sam Adelman teaches and researches climate change, legal theory and international development law and Human Rights in the School of Law at the University of Warwick and several modules in the LLM in International Development Law and Human Rights.  He has degrees from the University of Witwatersrand, Harvard University and the University of Warwick. He was banned, detained and exiled during the struggle against apartheid. Prof Adelman has been appointed as research associate in the Public Law Department at Nelson Mandela University.





Prior to the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 by a coalition of armed forces led by the United States of America, the applicant was a general manager in the national secretariat of the Ba’ath Party and a General in El Quds Army, the private army of the Ba’ath Party. He lived in Umm Qasr, a port city in the region of Basrah. In April 2003, after the British Army had entered into occupation of Basrah, they detained the applicant’s brother. According to the applicant, this was done to force the applicant, who was wanted because of his Ba’ath Party connections, to surrender to custody. The Government denied this, stating that it was a case of mistaken identity. The applicant’s brother was subsequently taken by United Kingdom forces to Camp Bucca, a detention facility operated by the United States, although parts were also used by the United Kingdom to detain and interrogate detainees. Following interrogation by both US and UK authorities, the applicant’s brother was deemed to be of no intelligence value and, according to the records, was released on or around 12 May 2003. According to the applicant, the family had no further news of the applicant’s brother until his body was discovered some 700 kilometres away in early September 2003.

In 2007 the applicant brought proceedings in the English administrative court, but these were dismissed after the court found that Camp Bucca was a United States rather than a United Kingdom military establishment.

In his application to the European Court, the applicant alleged that his brother was arrested and detained by British forces in Iraq and was subsequently found dead in unexplained circumstances. He complained under Article 5 §§ 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the Convention that the arrest and detention were arbitrary and unlawful and lacked in procedural safeguards and under Articles 2, 3 and 5 that the United Kingdom authorities failed to carry out an investigation into the circumstances of the detention, ill-treatment and death.

The court:

  1. Unanimously declared that the complaints under Articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights are inadmissible;
  2. Unanimously holds that the applicant’s brother was within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom between the time of his arrest and the time of his release from the bus that took him from Camp Bucca;
  3. Unanimously declared that the complaints under Article 5 ss 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the Convention are admissible;
  4. Holds, by thirteen votes to four, that there has been no violation of Article 5 ss 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the Convention.

The case can be found here.